In India When History Becomes a Casualty of "WhatsApp University"

 

In India When History Becomes a Casualty of "WhatsApp University"

I find myself compelled to write this blog thanks to a handful of BJP loyalists who generously read my work and return with their “unique” interpretations of history. While I appreciate their engagement, it’s hard to ignore the logical gymnastics they perform to defend their views. So, here’s an attempt to set the record straight, even though logic may not be their strongest suit.

Let’s start with the fascinating phenomenon of "WhatsApp University," a factory of misinformation designed to produce unwavering faith in an alternative version of history. Take one particularly fervent admirer, for example. She not only despises Rahul Gandhi with unmatched zeal—despite his lack of any substantive power—but also passionately declares that Subhash Chandra Bose was India’s first prime minister. Yes, you read that right. Subhash Chandra Bose, who mysteriously disappeared in 1945, was somehow governing India two years before independence in 1947. While historians have thoroughly debunked this claim, it continues to thrive in the echo chambers of politically motivated revisionism. After all, what’s a little chronological inaccuracy when crafting a good story?

Now, contrast this with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated claim that Sardar Patel should have been the first prime minister of India. According to Modi, had Patel held the position, India’s Kashmir issue would have been “solved.” This argument, apart from being factually absurd, conveniently ignores a crucial detail: Patel passed away in 1950, long before the first general election in 1951-52. The idea that Patel would have solved the Kashmir problem is as fanciful as it is historically hollow, given that Patel, despite his successes in unifying princely states, couldn’t secure Kashmir’s integration into India.

When Patel was working tirelessly to bring hundreds of princely states into the Indian Union, he faced significant challenges. While he used diplomacy and, when necessary, military force (as in the case of Hyderabad), he was unable to convince Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir to join India outright. The eventual accession of Kashmir to India came under entirely different circumstances, during the 1947-48 war. The conflict itself was messy, with both Indian and Pakistani forces relying on leftover British resources. The British, still overseeing India’s defense services, imposed a ceasefire, creating the so-called Line of Control (LoC). Patel, for all his strengths, did not play a decisive role in this outcome, despite the BJP’s attempts to rewrite history.

Returning to my BJP admirer, her belief that Subhash Chandra Bose was India’s first prime minister reflects the enduring power of political myth-making. This narrative serves to diminish the towering legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru, who led India during its most formative years. Nehru, whom she vilifies with passion, oversaw the real work of nation-building: laying the foundations for education, industrialization, agriculture, infrastructure, and foreign policy. But to her, as with many of her peers, Nehru is simply the scapegoat for all of India’s historical challenges, thanks to the carefully curated lessons of "WhatsApp University."

It’s worth noting that the BJP’s newfound reverence for Sardar Patel isn’t rooted in genuine appreciation for his legacy. Instead, Patel has been elevated as a counterbalance to Nehru, whose contributions they refuse to acknowledge. Patel’s role in integrating princely states into India is significant and deserves respect, but the BJP’s narrative conveniently ignores the limitations he faced, including his inability to fully resolve the Kashmir issue. This selective retelling of history creates a distorted picture where Patel is the ultimate hero, and Nehru is the perennial villain.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a BJP narrative without a healthy dose of irony. Their ideological forebears, far from being champions of independence, were often cozying up to the British and the Muslim League during the freedom struggle. Yet, today’s BJP portrays itself as the sole custodian of India’s nationalist legacy. This convenient reinvention ignores the contributions of countless leaders, including Nehru, Ambedkar, and Indira Gandhi.

Speaking of Indira Gandhi, her legacy often attracts similar revisionist attacks. Love her or hate her, she took decisive steps that transformed India—nationalizing banks, ending privileges for former royalty, and strengthening India’s military. Her leadership during the 1971 war with Pakistan cemented India’s place on the global stage. But these achievements don’t fit the BJP’s tidy narrative, so they are either ignored or vilified.

In the end, the BJP’s historical distortions serve a clear purpose: to craft a simplistic narrative where identity politics trump nuanced understanding. For them, blaming Nehru for everything and elevating Patel as the would-be savior is far easier than grappling with the complexities of history. After all, why bother with facts when you’ve got "Hindu pride solves everything" as your guiding philosophy?

So here we are, watching history twisted and contorted to fit an agenda. Perhaps it’s easier to blame the past than to confront the messy realities of the present. But one thing is certain: in the classroom of "WhatsApp University," facts are an optional subject, and nuance is unwelcome.